Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik J.: (Oral) - Having been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act for short) vide judgment of conviction dated 29.7.2010 and sentenced for six months RI, vide order of sentence dated 30.7.2010, passed by the learned JMIC, Hansi and appeal thereafter having been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide judgment dated 10.5.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the impugned judgments by way of instant criminal revision petition.

2. The facts are hardly in dispute. It is a matter of record that on the request made by the petitioner, respondent no.2-complainant society known as The Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative NATC, Society Ltd. Hansi, Distt. Hisar, advanced him a loan of Rs.20,000/- on 8.12.2003 and Rs.1,10,000/- on 8.10.2005,vide account no.404. The respondent no.2-complainant-society raised the demand on the petitioner, who issued cheque bearing no.117581 dated 17.10.2007, amounting to Rs.1,47,149 in favour of the respondent-complainantsociety. However, the cheque came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds vide memo dated 20.10.2007. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued by respondent no.2-complainant-society to the petitioner by way of registered post, which was duly served upon the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not make any payment inspite of receipt of the legal notice, the respondent no.2-complainantsociety set the criminal law into motion against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ sort short). The petitioner was summoned under Section 138 of the Act and pursuant thereto, he put in appearance. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. On the basis of the evidence adduced by respondent no.2- complainant-society, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. He was convicted vide judgement of conviction dated 29.7.2010 for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 138 of the Act. He was also ordered to pay the cheque amount of Rs.1,47,149/- as compensation to respondent no.2- complainant-society within one month. In default of compensation, the petitioner was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months vide order of sentence dated 30.7.2010 passed by the learned JMIC, Hansi.

4. Dissatisfied with the judgement of conviction and order of sentence, noted above, the petitioner filed his appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Respondent no.2-complainant-society also filed appeal seeking enhancement in the sentence and also for compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short). Both the appeals were heard together and were dismissed vide common judgement dated 10.5.2012.

5. Feeling aggrieved against the above said impugned judgements of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 401 Cr.P.C. by way of instant criminal revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire outstanding amount has since been paid and pursuant thereto, ‘No Dues Certificate’ dated 15.5.2012 (Annexure-P-1) having been issued by respondent No. 2-complainant, the instant petition deserves to be accepted.

7. Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2- complainant appeared and admitted the factum of deposit of the entire outstanding amount and issuance of ‘No Dues Certificate’ dated 15.5.2012 (Annexure-P-1). He further submits that respondent No. 2-complainant has got no objection in case the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are ordered to be quashed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.2-complainant society are ad-idem that pursuant to the mutual settleme